Electronic trespassing. Making use of system resources that are not theirs. Stealing electricity, hard drive, memory space and performing unauthorised network communications. Crackers have been put in jail for much, much less than the above.
Fair enough.
Now if only adware/spyware were vigorously prosecuted for similar masquerading, consuming computer resources.
It's weird that unauthorized use of a microdollar of electricity would be the basis of prosecution, while the privacy invasion of phoning home to the mother ship - which I would consider a much more serious offense - is not.
It's kind of like getting Al Capone for income tax evasion instead of the real crimes.
Perhaps more such software with "auto-update" features will come under closer scrutiny as an unauthorized wiretap, click-through "user consent" notwithstanding. There is certainly the potential for widespread compromise of private information.
Everyone benefits the most under capitalism when competitors can easily enter the market to provide alternatives.
That is, when barriers to entry, whatever they may be, are minimized.
If I have to purchase licenses, sign NDA's, reverse engineer an obfuscated binary code, convince customers to download my alternative application to what appears on their Windows desktop, or contend with newly emergent "standards" that I have no idea what they are going to be, then those represent barriers to entry for me as a potential competitor.
That means inefficient markets and that means people are paying more for what they're getting and/or getting less for what they're paying.
Suppose Microsoft is forced to provide the option of a version of Windows XP without the media player? Now that it's pretty well established a foothold in the marketplace, how many customers and OEMs are really going to exercise such an option? Plus, they already have XP Embedded waiting that could be easily adapted to this purpose.
Net effect on Microsoft's media strategy: minor speedbump.
Fines: I've heard talk of 2e8 Euros. Even with the depreciation of the dollar, MS has 6e10 dollars in cash. That's about, oh, 0.3 per cent. Like, hurt me.
Effect on Microsoft's cash flow: minor speedbump.
This may appear stringent compared with the US Justice Department's settlement, but it's still no big deal for Microsoft.
As usual, the wheels of justice have arrived too little, too late.
There is nothing monopolistic about making your product available to as many people/organizations/governments that you can.
Even if you do it at a net loss to your company?
You could call that "generating goodwill" and I'm sure there will be people calling it just that. Company shareholders will tolerate some goodwill as long as they can be convinced it translates into the bottom line at some point. OTOH, I could take a fair hit of ill-will as a company as long as I was making billions of dollars per year in profits, so goodwill is only so valuable.
But having been through the school of TANSTAAFL I would be suspicious of a profit-making entity just giving something away. They don't do it without a well thought-out profit-minded reason.
What we need is proof that it's happening here and now, and crushing innovation and generally hurting society.
And that is very difficult to prove.
When a company or small group of companies successfully quash competition but yet
provide some product or service, they can claim
that they're providing a very valuable product or service,
that they are innovating,
that they are in their position because consumer's or the market chose them as the provider.
and they can make such claims with a voice amplified by the amount of money they derive from their activities both in the mass media and to the politicians that make the rules.
Such claims can be made even if they're false or ridiculous, just because it is so damn difficult to prove conclusively what the alternate reality would have been.
[Eg, if Microsoft did not 0\/\/n PC operating systems and Office software, who's to prove the market wouldn't have been equivalently badly raped by IBM, Apple or Sun?]
So from one perspective, isn't there a good case to be made to slowly increase the rents for high power broadcast use of the spectrum?
It seems to me that more efficient use could be made of the EM spectrum using newer digital technology, especially if there weren't big honkin 50,000 Watt stations broadcasting analog advertisements about 25 minutes per hour.
By putting the squeeze on spectrum rental we could move to more cellular use of it in local areas.
Given that spectrum is limited while technology costs keep decreasing and that last mile service provision has always been a stumbling block, it seems to make sense to me as a policy.
Politically, I'm sure there are entrenched interests that want to continue to sit on an established advantage of mining a natural resource like spectrum, however inefficient that may be from an overall perspective.
I'm assuming, of course, that you've already presented your case to a supervisor or HR person or something
And here is where many enraged geeks make a big mistake.
They become so upset at the Stupid Fscking Policy and explain in no uncertain terms just how stupid it is to
people everywhere
people in authority over them
people in authority that made the policy
and this is compounding one mistake in policy by another mistake in proper feedback to human beings. Guess what, people are Unsympathetic if you refer to their decisions as shit.
If you want a better chance for the policy to change, you'll get more chance of success if you don't go apoplectic. Instead, take about 100 deep breaths, sleep 2 two nights, count to 10000 and think about a much larger problem such as nuclear annihilation and how small your problem really is.
Then, and only then, go into the office of someone who matters and explain calmly and respectfully how perhaps the new policy didn't fully take into account all of the benefits the company was getting as a result of the old policy and wasn't there someway an accomodation could be reached?
If it were me, I'd try to sell customers on added customized services that you can provide.
First, you're not going to sell much to tinkerers and hobbyists - the best you can do there is to have reliable hardware that is proven to work on some Linux distribution. Then, don't worry about it. They'll probably install their own favorite distro and apps.
Go after people that want portable unix, such as for training sessions, etc. Granted, a lot the customers are probably quite knowledgeable about Linux configuration, but I think there's still room to do some customization for them that they don't want to do.
And always, in the background, Linux laptops have to be compared to what people can get with MacOS X. There's some catching up to do....
Not an expert, not a GTK regular, but a while back when I checked things out it looked like you had to use something like GTK-- or something to get a nice convenient C++ interface.
Is that still true, or have things changed significantly?
[No, I don't want to start a flamewar, either. Just curious.]
I'd be interested in what price this insurance sells for.
On the one hand, I would expect it to be cheap inasmuch as many of the legal attacks so far appear to be without merit.
OTOH, with only a small number of underwriters willing to write policies, they could charge interested customers what the market will bear with few suppliers.
And, in some cases, customers may feel that they're getting so much value from their open source software deployments that they'd be willing to pay more than some might expect.
And the free software community would be one of the first to burn from the full heat of it.
Point taken.
How about monetary penalties that are a percentage of the amount paid, say 2% of the sales price, for what really amounts to a manufacturing defect?
That way, people that are getting paid to produce quality software will have an added incentive to produce higher quality software, while those who give software away for free are not penalized.
Of course, if there were some kind of genuinely competitive marketplace for software, something that free and open standards would enable, then there would be no need for such tricks to make software quality higher. Competition would produce the best quality at the lowest price.
Doesn't Congress realize the security implications of this? Have we had enough burdensome regulation and government red tape mucking up the best of the free enterprise sysetm that made this country great?
Hackers could hijack my car for illicit purposes, such as terrorism and kiddiepron!
Not to mention that original parts go through quality inspection processes that cheap aftermarket flybynight outfits don't do!
It's been over two years since I bought a dual Pentium IV from HP on which to run Linux exclusively, and to build and run my many applications developed over the years on other flavors of UNIX.
I considered the X4000 "high-end" at the time; probably sunk US$6K into it.
why aren't more companies pushing a high end Linux workstation?
Because companies don't have to push. Customers are pulling. And companies don't need to alienate Microsoft by a big ad campaign for desktop Linux. It's enough, a word to the wise, just to show that Linux is an option when you configure your box.
I like the idea of a IP packet based network that can route around problems.
Even phone networks are going this way after you get away from the last mile circuits which are much more vulnerable to interruptions of service than packets willing to take whatever route is available.
From what I understand, entitlement spending such as Social Security and Medicare far outweigh discretionary spending, such as defense, R&D, roads, etc.
The scary part is the growth of interest on the debt. Just wait until interest rates creep up, too. The recent run-up in government debt reflects some serious mismanagement; those responsible for it should be held accountable.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are offering the United States sound fiscal policy.
I like to see intelligent social spending as opposed to either letting people die of starvation on the streets or to developing an unhealthy culture of dependency.
I'm paying big time into OASDI for current beneficiaries that are getting a lot more from the system than they ever put in. But I want the system fixed by the time I retire. I don't expect to get anything like the current level of benefits from social security, nor should I.
Raise the retirement age, means-test benefits, index increases according to prices instead of wages, and keep benefits as an absolute rock-bottom safety net, not as semi-comfortable retirement plan. IMHO, we ought to invest much more in kids age 0-20 than in people aged 60-80, but the former don't vote and the latter do.
You're right, that politicians would rather touch a live third rail like social security or increase taxes as well as institute a draft.
However, somewhere I've read where many reservists terms are set to expire sometime this year. A lot of these folks were planning on a lot less action than what they're getting now in Iraq.
If the US exit strategy doesn't play out nicely, then there could be a strong need for personnel. And either you draft them or you pay them more. That latter option is more difficult considering the half trillion dollar annual deficits we're running right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Electronic trespassing. Making use of system resources that are not theirs. Stealing electricity, hard drive, memory space and performing unauthorised network communications. Crackers have been put in jail for much, much less than the above.
Fair enough.
Now if only adware/spyware were vigorously prosecuted for similar masquerading, consuming computer resources.
It's weird that unauthorized use of a microdollar of electricity would be the basis of prosecution, while the privacy invasion of phoning home to the mother ship - which I would consider a much more serious offense - is not.
It's kind of like getting Al Capone for income tax evasion instead of the real crimes.
Perhaps more such software with "auto-update" features will come under closer scrutiny as an unauthorized wiretap, click-through "user consent" notwithstanding. There is certainly the potential for widespread compromise of private information.
Capitalism is about the freedom to compete
Freedom is a loaded word.
Everyone benefits the most under capitalism when competitors can easily enter the market to provide alternatives.
That is, when barriers to entry, whatever they may be, are minimized.
If I have to purchase licenses, sign NDA's, reverse engineer an obfuscated binary code, convince customers to download my alternative application to what appears on their Windows desktop, or contend with newly emergent "standards" that I have no idea what they are going to be, then those represent barriers to entry for me as a potential competitor.
That means inefficient markets and that means people are paying more for what they're getting and/or getting less for what they're paying.
Suppose Microsoft is forced to provide the option of a version of Windows XP without the media player? Now that it's pretty well established a foothold in the marketplace, how many customers and OEMs are really going to exercise such an option? Plus, they already have XP Embedded waiting that could be easily adapted to this purpose.
Net effect on Microsoft's media strategy: minor speedbump.
Fines: I've heard talk of 2e8 Euros. Even with the depreciation of the dollar, MS has 6e10 dollars in cash. That's about, oh, 0.3 per cent. Like, hurt me.
Effect on Microsoft's cash flow: minor speedbump.
This may appear stringent compared with the US Justice Department's settlement, but it's still no big deal for Microsoft.
As usual, the wheels of justice have arrived too little, too late.
How about interfacing with a computer?
You bet.
$EXPLETIVE means "Undo".
There is nothing monopolistic about making your product available to as many people/organizations/governments that you can.
Even if you do it at a net loss to your company?
You could call that "generating goodwill" and I'm sure there will be people calling it just that. Company shareholders will tolerate some goodwill as long as they can be convinced it translates into the bottom line at some point. OTOH, I could take a fair hit of ill-will as a company as long as I was making billions of dollars per year in profits, so goodwill is only so valuable.
But having been through the school of TANSTAAFL I would be suspicious of a profit-making entity just giving something away. They don't do it without a well thought-out profit-minded reason.
What we need is proof that it's happening here and now, and crushing innovation and generally hurting society.
And that is very difficult to prove.
When a company or small group of companies successfully quash competition but yet provide some product or service, they can claim
- that they're providing a very valuable product or service,
- that they are innovating,
- that they are in their position because consumer's or the market chose them as the provider.
and they can make such claims with a voice amplified by the amount of money they derive from their activities both in the mass media and to the politicians that make the rules.Such claims can be made even if they're false or ridiculous, just because it is so damn difficult to prove conclusively what the alternate reality would have been.
[Eg, if Microsoft did not 0\/\/n PC operating systems and Office software, who's to prove the market wouldn't have been equivalently badly raped by IBM, Apple or Sun?]
So from one perspective, isn't there a good case to be made to slowly increase the rents for high power broadcast use of the spectrum?
It seems to me that more efficient use could be made of the EM spectrum using newer digital technology, especially if there weren't big honkin 50,000 Watt stations broadcasting analog advertisements about 25 minutes per hour.
By putting the squeeze on spectrum rental we could move to more cellular use of it in local areas.
Given that spectrum is limited while technology costs keep decreasing and that last mile service provision has always been a stumbling block, it seems to make sense to me as a policy.
Politically, I'm sure there are entrenched interests that want to continue to sit on an established advantage of mining a natural resource like spectrum, however inefficient that may be from an overall perspective.
Land of serious mental mathematicians, not just Ramanujan the theoretician.
I remember reading, Guiness Book perhaps, of someone in India extracting high roots of many digit numbers.
Sometimes, even in Europe, mental mathematicians lead interesting and unpredictable lives.
I'm assuming, of course, that you've already presented your case to a supervisor or HR person or something
And here is where many enraged geeks make a big mistake.
They become so upset at the Stupid Fscking Policy and explain in no uncertain terms just how stupid it is to
- people everywhere
- people in authority over them
- people in authority that made the policy
and this is compounding one mistake in policy by another mistake in proper feedback to human beings. Guess what, people are Unsympathetic if you refer to their decisions as shit.If you want a better chance for the policy to change, you'll get more chance of success if you don't go apoplectic. Instead, take about 100 deep breaths, sleep 2 two nights, count to 10000 and think about a much larger problem such as nuclear annihilation and how small your problem really is.
Then, and only then, go into the office of someone who matters and explain calmly and respectfully how perhaps the new policy didn't fully take into account all of the benefits the company was getting as a result of the old policy and wasn't there someway an accomodation could be reached?
If it were me, I'd try to sell customers on added customized services that you can provide.
First, you're not going to sell much to tinkerers and hobbyists - the best you can do there is to have reliable hardware that is proven to work on some Linux distribution. Then, don't worry about it. They'll probably install their own favorite distro and apps.
Go after people that want portable unix, such as for training sessions, etc. Granted, a lot the customers are probably quite knowledgeable about Linux configuration, but I think there's still room to do some customization for them that they don't want to do.
And always, in the background, Linux laptops have to be compared to what people can get with MacOS X. There's some catching up to do....
Whatever happened to good old steradians?
Of course, I'm probably living in someone else's view of a sky that is measured in cubic degrees.
Not an expert, not a GTK regular, but a while back when I checked things out it looked like you had to use something like GTK-- or something to get a nice convenient C++ interface.
Is that still true, or have things changed significantly?
[No, I don't want to start a flamewar, either. Just curious.]
I'd be interested in what price this insurance sells for.
On the one hand, I would expect it to be cheap inasmuch as many of the legal attacks so far appear to be without merit.
OTOH, with only a small number of underwriters willing to write policies, they could charge interested customers what the market will bear with few suppliers.
And, in some cases, customers may feel that they're getting so much value from their open source software deployments that they'd be willing to pay more than some might expect.
choice to boycott this kind of shit completely
I know that I would be interested in getting the latest high performance computer without this TCPA "feature".
If there were a handy list of MB manufacturers that do not have TCPA I'd be interested. Others might too.
I've actually heard somewhere the opposite being true.
That exposure to too many infectious agents over your lifetime will "wear out" your body's defenses.
Certain diseases, can't remember which, can have lingering aftereffects for years to come. (No, not just STD's.)
OTOH, I'm getting allergy shots that artificially increase my exposure to seasonal allergens. It seem to be helping.
And the free software community would be one of the first to burn from the full heat of it.
Point taken.
How about monetary penalties that are a percentage of the amount paid, say 2% of the sales price, for what really amounts to a manufacturing defect?
That way, people that are getting paid to produce quality software will have an added incentive to produce higher quality software, while those who give software away for free are not penalized.
Of course, if there were some kind of genuinely competitive marketplace for software, something that free and open standards would enable, then there would be no need for such tricks to make software quality higher. Competition would produce the best quality at the lowest price.
Doesn't Congress realize the security implications of this? Have we had enough burdensome regulation and government red tape mucking up the best of the free enterprise sysetm that made this country great?
Hackers could hijack my car for illicit purposes, such as terrorism and kiddiepron!
Not to mention that original parts go through quality inspection processes that cheap aftermarket flybynight outfits don't do!
</pre-emptive shill from lobbyists>
It's been over two years since I bought a dual Pentium IV from HP on which to run Linux exclusively, and to build and run my many applications developed over the years on other flavors of UNIX.
I considered the X4000 "high-end" at the time; probably sunk US$6K into it.
why aren't more companies pushing a high end Linux workstation?
Because companies don't have to push. Customers are pulling. And companies don't need to alienate Microsoft by a big ad campaign for desktop Linux. It's enough, a word to the wise, just to show that Linux is an option when you configure your box.
I like the idea of a IP packet based network that can route around problems.
Even phone networks are going this way after you get away from the last mile circuits which are much more vulnerable to interruptions of service than packets willing to take whatever route is available.
Assuming the latency can be overcome, of course.
I think both of your figures are low.
From what I understand, entitlement spending such as Social Security and Medicare far outweigh discretionary spending, such as defense, R&D, roads, etc.
The scary part is the growth of interest on the debt. Just wait until interest rates creep up, too. The recent run-up in government debt reflects some serious mismanagement; those responsible for it should be held accountable.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are offering the United States sound fiscal policy.
I like to see intelligent social spending as opposed to either letting people die of starvation on the streets or to developing an unhealthy culture of dependency.
I'm paying big time into OASDI for current beneficiaries that are getting a lot more from the system than they ever put in. But I want the system fixed by the time I retire. I don't expect to get anything like the current level of benefits from social security, nor should I.
Raise the retirement age, means-test benefits, index increases according to prices instead of wages, and keep benefits as an absolute rock-bottom safety net, not as semi-comfortable retirement plan. IMHO, we ought to invest much more in kids age 0-20 than in people aged 60-80, but the former don't vote and the latter do.
You're right, that politicians would rather touch a live third rail like social security or increase taxes as well as institute a draft.
However, somewhere I've read where many reservists terms are set to expire sometime this year. A lot of these folks were planning on a lot less action than what they're getting now in Iraq.
If the US exit strategy doesn't play out nicely, then there could be a strong need for personnel. And either you draft them or you pay them more. That latter option is more difficult considering the half trillion dollar annual deficits we're running right now.
So, moving back to an older benchmark, how much faster is a 1000 MHz Thunderbird than a VAX 11/780?
Never
- enter into a business relationship,
- sell a car to,
- buy a car from,
- lend money to,
- lend money from,
a friend, s.o., or a relative.I know, I know, they're mature and trustworthy and it looks like it would help out.
But I cannot emphasize enough: DO NOT DO IT.
SANs has security-related white papers over here.
However, I think
most users are so ignorant of what is good software that they just buy whatever is most shinny and pretty and expensive.
Not just software, either.
Intelligent, educated, discriminating buyers are a minority in most marketplaces.